Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Rajan Sood & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Delhi Development Authority & Ors. – Respondents
LPA 19 of 2023
Decided On : 08-02-2023
Land Acquisition - Demolition Action - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 4, Section 6, Section 11, Section 24 - The court discussed the applicability of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, the effect of Section 16 of the 1894 Act, and the interpretation of Section 48 of the 1894 Act in the context of the proposed demolition action by the DDA. The court also highlighted the overruling of previous judgments and the settled position regarding possession and encumbrances under the Acts.
Fact of the Case:
The Appellants challenged the proposed demolition action by the DDA on a property initially notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Appellants also sought a declaration that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the acquisition proceedings had not lapsed and the land had been validly acquired, vesting absolutely in the Government as per Section 16 of the 1894 Act. The court also held that the Appellants were encroachers of public land and their attempts to cling to the property could not be permitted.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, the effect of Section 16 of the 1894 Act, and the interpretation of Section 48 of the 1894 Act in the context of the proposed demolition action by the DDA.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as well as the settled position regarding possession and encumbrances under the Acts.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court held that the Appellants were not in lawful occupation of the property in question, and the proceedings had attained finality in view of Section 16 of the 1894 Act.
JUDGMENT
1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Writ Petition vide Judgment impugned herein dated 04.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 17490/2022, the instant appeal has been preferred by the Appellants.
2. The Writ Petition, i.e. W.P.(C) 17490/2022, was filed by the Appellants herein ("Writ Petitioners") challenging the action of Respondent No.1/DDA for proposed demolition to be done on 22.12.2022 in Khasra No. 804/24-26 (5-14), situated at Village Sadhora Kalan, near Mahavir Model Senior Secondary School, Opposite Nanak Piau Gurudwara, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the property in question.).
3. According to the Appellants, the property in question i.e., Khasra No. 804/24-26 (5-14) was initially notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act.) vide a Notification dated 24.01.1961. A declaration under Section 6 of the1894 Act was made on 23.12.1968, for acquiring the property in question for public purposes. Thereafter, an award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, only in respect of land in Khasra No.804/24-26.
4. Sometime in 2011, the Appellants while invoking Section 48 of the 1894 Act moved an application before the Government to withdraw from the acquisition of the property in question. Pending the application under Section 48 of the 1894 Act, the Appellants, after having received a notice dated 27.11.2011 from Respondent No. 1/DDA for removal of the construction from the property in question also moved a writ petition i.e., W.P. (C) 7714/2011. By Order dated 31.10.2011, the Division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned writ petition observed that the application of the Appellants filed under Section 48 of the 1894 Act has not become infructuous by the actions of the DDA. This Court also observed that the DDA will not act in derogation of the order dated 07.10.2011 passed by Appellate Tribunal, MCD, which had vide order dated 07.10.2011 remanded the matter back to the Executive Engineer for consideration of the issue of demolition. This Court, was of the opinion that since the issue of demolition is under challenge, the application filed by the Appellants under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not become infructuous.
5. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2013 Act.) came into effect on 01.01.2014.
6. The Appellants filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 1034/2015 before this Court stating that as per Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act, the acquisition proceedings initiated under the1894Act, had elapsed. Vide Order dated 30.08.2016 passed in W.P.(C) 1034/2015, the Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition holding that since neither physical possession of the subject land has been taken over by the land acquiring agency nor has any compensation been paid to the Appellants, and since the Award was passed more than five years prior to the passing of the 2013 Act, all the ingredients of Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act are fulfilled and, therefore, the acquisition has lapsed. The Division Bench of this Court relied upon the Judgements of the Apex Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. HarakchandMisrimal Solanki and Ors, (2014) 3 SCC 183, Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors, (2014) 6 SCC 564, Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors, (2015) 3 SCC 353.
7. The aforesaid Order dated 30.08.2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 1034/2015 was challenged by the Respondent No.1/DDA before the Apex Court by filing Civil Appeal No.1927/2022.
8. Pending appeal before the Apex Court, the Appellants approached this Court challenging a proposed demolition action by the DDA on the property in question, by filing Writ Petition bearing W.P.(C) 17490/2022, contending that since the acquisition had lapsed vide Judgme
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Petitioner's representation under Section 48 of the Act of 1894 was rejected by the Respondents and was not maintainable. The Petitioner's....
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Period during which interim order passed by Court is/was operative, has to be excluded in computation of five years’ period.
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not create a new cause of action to question finalized land acquisition proceedings where possession was taken and compensation paid.
Once possession is taken and an award is passed, challenges to land acquisition proceedings are not maintainable, and remedies for compensation must be sought through reference proceedings.
The failure to serve notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was fatal to the acquisition proceedings. Actual possession and tendering of compensation are essential to prevent lapse ....
The judgment establishes the importance of physical possession and disbursement of compensation in determining the lapsing of acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
